Correctable Error?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Agreed.

As described the first FT was the error, not the third.

Bob:

I disagree. A1 should have been awarded only two free throws and he was awarded three free throws. It does not matter if in the minds of the officials (insert half wit joke here, ) that he was awarding one and then two free throws, A1 was only entitled to two free throws and he received them; the third free throw that he attempted was the free throw to which he was not entitled to shoot. If A1 made the second and third or only the third free throw, the third free throw will be canceled.

MTD, Sr.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

As described the first FT was the error, not the third.

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

The third free throw that he attempted was the free throw to which he was not entitled to shoot.

This debate is actually very important if the shooter misses some of his free throws. I hope that we can get to some type of conclusion or closure. I want the corect answer.

[BLydic]

Always listen to MTD, Sr. No ... Bob ... always listen to Bob.

I'm going with what Bob said.

[just another ref]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

This debate is actually very important if the shooter misses some of his free throws. I hope that we can get to some type of conclusion or closure. I want the corect answer.

There is no debate. The question has been answered.

There is no "and 1."

[bob jenkins]

Let's try this a different way.

A1 shoots the "and 1". A1 shoots the "first of 2 for the intentional". Now, someone wakes up and says, "hey -- he only gets 2". Do we say he's shot his two, or do we wipe out the first, and shoot the third?

(and, to be clear, I thought I deleted my post above before I hit "post", but apparently not. Sorry to tell you Billy, but until the FED comes out, I don't think you'll get a definitive answer.)

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Let's try this a different way.

A1 shoots the "and 1". A1 shoots the "first of 2 for the intentional". Now, someone wakes up and says, "hey -- he only gets 2". Do we say he's shot his two, or do we wipe out the first, and shoot the third?

(and, to be clear, I thought I deleted my post above before I hit "post", but apparently not. Sorry to tell you Billy, but until the FED comes out, I don't think you'll get a definitive answer.)

As I said before, I think it depends on - and that this convo should happen - with what the R or reporting official tells the table (and hopefully the coaches) before any shots happen.

[BillyMac]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Sorry to tell you Billy, but until the FED comes out, I don't think you'll get a definitive answer.

Great? And exactly how am I supposed to get any sleep tonight?

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BillyMac

Great? And exactly how am I supposed to get any sleep tonight?

Billy:

You can sleep tonight if you listen to me, ; sorry Bob, but I have to take a stand on this one.

The ruling will be the same for both an NFHS IPF or an NCAA Flagrant 1 PF. The penalty for both of these fouls against a player attempting a two-point FG is two free throws, not three free throws (no matter what combination in which the free throws are shot: 1 + 2; 2 + 1; 1 + 1 + 1; or 3) which means that the third free throw that A1 shoots is the unmerited free throw.

A1 got to shoot his two free throws and that is all the matters. If the third free throw was successful: cancel the score.

MTD, Sr.

[just another ref]

It is difficult to say how you would correct an error if you cannot imagine making that error. I cannot imagine a varsity official who doesn't know this rule.

BUT,

you gotta do something.

What MTD says sounds very reasonable when he says it. But, my first thought was if the free throws are announced as "one" followed by "two" the first is certainly the one which was not merited. Bottom line is that I'm the ref and what I say goes so either is correct.

The night I saw this happen, I was a bit surprised that the coach on the short end didn't know better. Considerable time has passed, and now I find it less surprising what a coach doesn't know.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by bob jenkins

Let's try this a different way.

A1 shoots the "and 1". A1 shoots the "first of 2 for the intentional". Now, someone wakes up and says, "hey -- he only gets 2". Do we say he's shot his two, or do we wipe out the first, and shoot the third?

I think the former...he's done. The problem was awarding the wrong number of shots for a single foul. It isn't like there are several fouls that got all mixed up. It doesn't really matter what you call the shots because the player took the correct number and any in excess would be the mistake.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.

Bob:

I disagree. A1 should have been awarded only two free throws and he was awarded three free throws. It does not matter if in the minds of the officials (insert half wit joke here, ) that he was awarding one and then two free throws, A1 was only entitled to two free throws and he received them; the third free throw that he attempted was the free throw to which he was not entitled to shoot. If A1 made the second and third or only the third free throw, the third free throw will be canceled. MTD, Sr.

I agree. He gets two FTs. When he shot his second FT, he has now taken 2 FTs.

It makes no difference what senario the officials are saying happened or how they screwed up.

When the first two FTs are taken, any further FTs are unmerited.

[Mark T. DeNucci, Sr.]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I agree. He gets two FTs. When he shot his second FT, he has now taken 2 FTs.

It makes no difference what senario the officials are saying happened or how they screwed up.

When the first two FTs are taken, any further FTs are unmerited.

Thanks Tony. The check is in the mail.

MTD, Sr.